The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1887-07-23

ny CoTpOrauoni one party had the eS-
elusive supervision and the responsibility
That was Hr. Atkinson, and his response
bility could not be swept away bv saving
! that he was attending to his pri-
vate business. Mr.. Dole was entirely
wrong in his conception OF what consti-
tuted malice. Where a newspaper charges
public officer with a felony punishable
by imprisonment for life the article being
untrue creates a presumption of malice
which cannot be rebutted by testimony. 1t
was Dir. Atkinson duty TO attend 10 his
functions as editor independently of any
! private business Mr. Atkinson was well
known and highly respected but the CUES
/ ton was, should such ali article by neglect
be allowed TO 60 into 4 paper and be a
source OF danger, perhaps to life, and GER
tainly 10 reputation.
! His Honor. in summing up, said II was
seldom that the Courts were troubled with
actions against the press OF such q charac-
ter as this The law said that libel was the
publication of any matter which directly
tends to injure the fame, etc. OF any per
son, and To bring them into odium, hatred
| or contempt 1t was entirely Cor the jury
/
libel, but there could be but one opinion
that this was in law libel. The press had
some privileges, hut it had not the privi-
| lege OF publishing libel. Counsel for de-
PENDANT had said that this charge would
roll off Mr.. Pratt like water. That might
be. Those who had known him for years
would not believe that he had been guilty
of such conduct. His Honor knew the
the charge was false when he heard it. He
would have been obliged TO see il to believe
it. But although the press was useful to
us, and it was the duty of the press to pub
liSh public matters and offenses when they
were committed, yet there were great re-
spOnsibilities attached to it, and people
should take care that libels are not spread
Newspapers prided themselves on their
circulation, but the greater the circulation
the greater the mischief done by a libel
The publication of this extra issue
was for the purpose of sending TO
foreign parts by the steamer leaving the
same day and il would be impossible in
the ordinary course for any contradiction
of that TO reach parties in foreign parts for
a considerable time. The jury had 10 con-
slider whether defendant was guilty of libel
Prima facie the editor was responsible tor
everything that occurred in the paper OF
which he had control. So was the proprietor,
but he would not be responsible if he were
ignorant of any intention to publish
libel But it is serious matter to say
that man can be guilty OF an offense of
which he was not cognizant 1t appeared
to His Honor that this company had not
complied with the terms of their charter.
Under its provisions they were compelled |
TO publish the name of some officer who |
should be responsible crminaIly and other |
wise for all matter published; but the |
Government had not forced them TO do 1t.
This, however, did not absolve any other /
person who might be guilty. No such |
nomination had been filed in the Interior |
Office. They then had to deal with Mr. |
Atkinson as the editor and as the person
came reluctantly and against his own
feelings to the conclusion that if it were
found that this extra number of
the Gazette was published en-
tirely with the cognizance of Mr..
Atkinson. that he prepared what
he considered sufficient for the publications
that he was ignorant of the appearance of
the article, and that il was not his duty TO
know of it, the jury would then find for the
defendant. His HonOr's feeling in the
matter was that the editor was responsible
or all that was in the paper. If, however,
hey should find that Mr.. Atkinson was ig-
lOrant OF the publication of that article,
hat he did not know OF il, did not sanction
t and did not neglect any duty, then they
would find for the defendant. If, on the
contrary, they thought he did neglect a duty
Incumbent upon him as editor, whereby
he could have prevented the issue of this
Irticle, then he would be guilty. OF the
there could be no doubt, and
lie could only say that he felt for the
parties who had been injured.
Mr.. Neumann asked the Court to in
truct the jury as to the degree.
His Honor said that the jury must be
Judges OF the degree according to the nature
# the libel. The gauge OF malice was the
publication without lawful excuse The
natter in question was false and was
therefore, published without lawful excuse
The jury then retired, and after a few
minutes deliberatiOn returned a verdict OF
Ot guilty, and defendant was thereupon
ischarged.